Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Heard Counsel for the parties. The petitioner through this petition seeks to modify the impugned order dated 18.06.2005 in so far as it relates to release of the petitioners on bail. 2. The accused petitioners were granted bail under Section 439, CrPC by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and were ordered to be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/-with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/-of local solvent persons. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the condition to furnish local sureties as imposed in the bail order dated 18.06.2005 is too harash and coercive that it virtually amounts to denial of release of petitioners on bail. In support of his argument, learned Counsel has relied upon Moti Ram vs. State of M.P., 1978 SCC (Cri) 485, Keshab Narayan Banerjee & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1985 SC 1666 and Karan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 579/2005, decided by this Court on 23.05.2005. 3. I have considered the above argument and have gone through the case laws cited at the bar. In Para 33 of the Judgment in Moti Rams case (Supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court have depricated the view of the Courts in insisting upon brining local sureties while granting bail. The observations of the Apex Court may be quoted below: “To add insult to injury, the Magistrate has demanded sureties from his own district? (we assume the allegation in the petition). What is a Malayalee, Kannadiga, Tamil or Telugu to do if arrested for alleged misappropriation or theft or criminal trespass in Bastar, Port Blair, Pahalgam or Chandni Chowk? He cannot have sureties owning properties in these distant places. He may not know any one there and might have come in a batch or to seek a job or in a morcha. Judicial disruption of Indian unity is surest achieved by such provincial allergies. What law prescribes sureties from outside or non-regional language applications what law prescribes the geographical discrimination implicit in asking for sureties from the Court district? This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Article 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Article 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a Court, for redress of grievance in any language used in the Union of India. This tendency takes many forms, sometimes, geographic, sometimes linguistic, sometimes legalistic. Article 14 protects all Indians qua Indians, within the territory of India. Article 350 sanctions representation to any authority, including a Court, for redress of grievance in any language used in the Union of India. Equality before the law implies that even a vakalat or affirmation made in any State language according to the law in that State must be accepted everywhere in the territory of India save where a valid legislation to the contrary exists. Otherwise, an adivasi will be unfree to free India, and likewise many other minorities. The divagation has become necessary to still the judicial beginnings, and to inhibit the process of making Indians aliens in their own homeland. Swaraj is made of united stuff”. 4. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, this Court has also taken the same view in Karan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (Supra). 5. The petitioners are not the residents of State of Rajasthan. They belong to State of Haryana and thus, obviously they may not have the persons of their acquaintance in Rajasthan. In that view of the matter, considering the observations of the Apex Court as quoted above, I am of the considered view that the learned special Judge need not insist that the petitioners should produce local sureties. 6. Consequently, this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 18.06.2005 of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu stands modified accordingly. The learned Sessions Judge need not insist that the petitioners should produce sureties of his jurisdiction.